Re: Re: I'm not concerned about my Vitamin D intake

[Guest guest]

On 1/3/06, soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote:

> Yes, because irradiated ergosterol was assumed to be sufficient for

> the utilization of calcium and phosphorus by the body. Price's work

> with Yoder's test for antrachitic properties caused Price to realize

> that it was measuring a broader factor than just irradiated

> ergosterol and this factor was needed for the full utilization of

> calcium and phosphorus, hence the comparison. There would be no need

> to compare it with irradiated ergosterol plus an irradiated form of

> cholestrol unless it was claimed that these two together were

> responsible for the body to fully utilize calcium and phosphorus.

Now you have me TOTALLY lost. Ergosterol is derived from plants and

is particularly abundant in rye mold, and is usually derived from soy

for industrial fortification purposes. By contrast, irradiated

cholesterol is the form of vitamin D (D3) found in animal products.

So, quite obviously, Price would have to compare it to irradiated

7-dehydroxycholesterol or vitamin D3 to differentiate it from the

vitamin D in cod liver oil, and not from irradiated ergosterol derived

from plants.

> > I agree that this is suggestive, but it doesn't serve to

> > differentiate D3 from Activator X in the way that Price

> > differentiated D2 from Activator X (which perhaps also could

> > have used more rigor.) There is no group consuming D3 as

> > a control, and no group in which it is attempted to control

> > for the non-Yoder components of the butter oil with D3 in

> > place of the Yoder-test-associated complex.

>

> Do you think Price was an intelligent man or not? Since he clearly

> knew about both D2 and D3, I think he would have realized if

> combining D2 and D3 would allow him to realize the same results that

> he obtained in his experiments using what he called activator X.

That's preposterous and unscientific. Price's intelligence does not

ipso facto validate all of his conclusions. The best scientists of

any era have made mistakes and always will because of limits on

knowledge of the time, incompletely investigated issues, or simply

human error.

> He mentions that irradiated eergosterol is not a product of animal

> bodies. If D3, an irradiated form of cholestrol, is also not a

> product of animal bodies then the sum of D2 and D3 could not

> possibly be equivalent to activator X, as activator X is a product

> of animal bodies.

Irradiated 7-dehydroxycholesterol is a product of animal bodies!

Where else does 7-dehydroxycholesterol come from? This is exactly

what happens when the sunlight hits 7-dehydroxycholesterol in our

skin.

Besides, since Price was a SCIENTIST, Price obviously did not think it

sufficient to say that since D2 is not a product of animal bodies it

can't possibly be the X Factor (after all, the X factor was not

isolated, so he didn't know if an irradiated plant product could be

the same or not), but distinguished between the effects of the two.

Thus, he would have to fulfill the same standard of evidence to show

that D3 is not the X Factor.

> > What I said before was that there is no clear conclusivity

> > of a differentiation between D3 and Activator X

> > in the chapter. This is from my memory, granted, but

> > you haven't provided any information indicating otherwise.

> > No, what it is has no bearing on whether it works, but D3's

> > relationship to the Activator X complex is still up in

> > the air based on NAPD alone.

>

> I disagree, see above.

It appears the above was written with an erroneous understanding of

what D3 is, unless I'm misreading you.

> > Ok, in this analogy the negative effect of soil erosion

> > would be analogous to the positive effect of bone/tooth

> > mineralization or other benefits to mineral metabolism

> > or general health. Soil factor X to Price's Activator X,

> > and wind and rain to vitamins A and D. So why would one

> > dispense with concern over A and D intake due to an absence

> > of X?

>

> First, I never said that I was not concerned with my vitamin A

> intake, I said I wasn't concerned with my vitamin D intake. I don't

> know why you are asking me about dispensing with my or with anyone's

> concern over their vitamin A intake.

Because A is equally insufficient to carry out the effects of the

butter oil/CLO combo as is D. Therefore, to be logically consistent,

you'd have to treat your concern over A as you would your concern over

D.

> Since Price never claimed that Vitamin A was part of activator X,

> there would be no reason that a sufficient intake of it would

> dispense with the need to be concerned with vitamin A intake.

So are you saying, then, that you consider vitamin D to be important,

but consider it to be one component of a complex that you are calling

" activator x " ?

If so, then I think what you are saying makes more sense, but it still

strikes me as entirely arbitrary to delineate this complex in such a

manner that it excludes A and includes D. A and D are both isolated

and well-studied, so we can talk about them as individual nutrients.

> Note that in the dairy samples Price tested in the herd in Deaf

> county, I assume near Herford, Texas, the nutrients were

> moving up together when the cows got back on green grass after

> consuming winter feed. Thus, it would seem that if you find dairy

> with a high level of activator X then could could expect it to have

> a high level of vitamin A at the same time.

That strikes me as another reason that it is arbitrary to call X a

complex that includes D but excludes A, if that is indeed what you are

saying.

> If you are conderned with soil erosion it is pointless to worry

> about the insufficient causes, wind and rain. It would make sense,

> however, to be concerned about the soil fertility. If you fix the

> soil fertility, you won't need to be concerned with the action of

> wind or rain on soil erosion. So, if you are concerned with your

> activator X intake which takes care of your body's ability to

> utilize calcium and phosphorus, there is no need to ever be

> concerned with your vitamin D intake which is insufficient to take

> care of your body's ability to utilize calcium and phosphorus.

Once again, you conflate vitamin D3 with D2.

I also think it is logically inconsistent to dispense with care about

D and not equally do so with A. Since we don't necessarily even know

what X is, we do not know that, if it is different than D, that X and

D always occur in the same ratios. A does not always appear with X or

D in the same ratios. And A and D were at one point considered the

same vitamin. So, if D and X are something different but tend to be

associated as some complex as do A and D, then we don't know that

there isn't the same variance between D and X distribution as there is

between A and D distribution (or A and X distribution), in which case

D is an independent point of concern, just as A is.

Finally, since Price didn't show that X and D are independent (I'm not

saying they aren't, but he didn't show it) nutrients, we don't know to

what degree D at the right latitudes and seasons when we can produce

it well is sufficient to replace dietary X. But we DO know that there

is plenty of good reason to maintain our serum 25 (OH) D levels

optimally, which is accomplishable through both sunlight (irradiating

the 7-dehdyroxycholesterol in our skin!) and diet. And IF the X is a

complex that is broader than D or something independent of D, we know

that maintaining 25 (OH) D levels through sunlight IS beneficial,

which means its beneficial independent of X, which means that A, X,

and D are all independent points of concern.

> > Also, another point is that Price showed that A resulted in

> > certain benefits to growth alone that could not match

> > the combined effect of A and X (and of course he had switched

> > from referring to D to referring to the same thing as X

> > and therefore wasn't differentiating between D and X). So in

> > some respects each component may actually be eficacious

> > in itself, though inferior to the whole complex.

>

> Again, I didn't mention vitamin A and I have no idea why you are

> talking about it.

I was demonstrating the point that two synergistic components can be

superior to having one of them, but one of them can still be

beneficial. I was demonstrating this *principle* with A and X, which

remains true for D and X. If D is a separable part of X and there is

another component, say, Xx, then it could be better to have D present

without much Xx than to have no D and no Xx, just as the same was true

for X and A in the above example, in which case D should remain an

independent point of concern.

If, however, you regard D as being not important at all, then there is

an extensive body of research to prove that wrong. In either of the

two alternatives, X does not negate independent concern of D.

> > But IF Activator X is something different than D3, D3 is

> > important in and of itself, as is vitamin A, in conjunction

> > with X. Moreover it is abundantly clear from the research

> > that D3 itself plays important roles in synergism with

> > vitamin A and it is quite clear that serum 25 (OH) D levels

> > matter. Concern over activator X shouldn't blind us to the fact

> > that D3 intake and serum 25 (OH) D are demonstrated important

> > factors in health.

>

> It might be necessary to review that data from Price's original work

> to see if he found that activator X contained both D2 and D3 and the

> other two factors in the D complex. If D3 is part of activator X,

> then getting sufficient activator X in the diet would ensure that D3

> requirements would be met.

No, it wouldn't necessarily, because " complex " is vaguely defined.

All we can say about this " complex " is that the Yoder test failed to

differentiate between several components. That doesn't mean they are

inextricably bound up in a constant ratio and can never vary in

distribution. Again, look at how A and D were once thought to be the

same vitamin but were later separated. One of the pieces of evidence

for their separation was that the properties being associated with

them had different distributions in different foods. So to say that

since D3 is in a " complex " with X and therefore wherever X is present

D3 must also be is potentially as false as it would have been to say

that wherever A is present D must be and vice versa.

> Again, I never mentioned that I was not concerned with my vitamin A

> intake and I have no idea why you are talking about vitamin A now.

> Is this to divert attention from the activator X, vitamin D issue?

>

> From Weston Price's data presented in the chapter on a new vitamin-

> like activator, I will continue to be concerned with my activator X

> intake and to not worry about my vitamin D intake, because taking

> care of the former takes care of the latter.

> By the way, what source of activator X do you have in your diet and,

> if you believe that it is sufficient to meet your needs, how do you

> know that it is sufficient?

Dave Wetzel says he's using the Activator X test for various things

and he finds it in his butter oil and finds less but also present in

his CLO. So those would be sources. Other than that, I don't know,

because I don't know how to perform the test, don't know if I would

have the necessary equipment, and no one I know testing anything I eat

is testing any of the food I eat for X except the two aforementioned

items.

May I remind you that your spontaneous declaration that you don't care

about vitamin D was apparently prompted by the dicussions of vitamin D

and A in the osteoporosis research, in which case, none of what you

said contradicts the point that D3 and A interact in the body and that

this has important implications for how to view the A research on

osteoporosis, which is precisely what we were talking about, and

again, none of that conversation was about our concern over our D

intake in our diets anyway. It was about hypothesizing why A was

having a certain effect in Sweden.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

One more point:

Let's say that D is part of a complex X and let's designate the non-D

component(s) of X as Xx. To say that where X is, D also is, is, of

course, a tautology and therefore meaningless. But to say that

wherever Xx is, D must also be, is a meaningful statement. If to say

that D is complexed with Xx makes this statement necessarily true,

then the corollary of this reasoning is that where D is, Xx must also

be. And if that's true, then we can synthesize Xx in our skin.

Either that's true, or to say that Xs is complexed with D in a complex

X does NOT necessitate EITHER statement, that where D is, Xx must also

be, or that where Xx is, D must also be.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

On 1/4/06, soilfertility <ynos@...> wrote:

> (If

> you are interested, I can send you an article that I just wrote to

> help people judge the nutritional value of raw milk based on the

> agronomic methods used to produce it.)

I would definitely like to read this and I'm sure many others on the

list would as well. Where is it going to be published? If it's

published open-access internet, definitely send the link; otherwise

please let those of us know where we can get it if interested anyway.

Thanks!

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html